nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 23:
Line 23: + +
→Merge: You have a fair bit to say about something not worth talking about.
:::I do not think this should be merged with Dawkins' article. True, he did coin the term, but others have expanded on it significantly - for example Dr. Susan Blackmore in her book, The Meme Machine. Moreover - what is the point of redirecting the article to another article that does not even mention memes? That does not make sense. It would appear as if time is being spent on studying memes, so I would think they are worth an entry on their own, with an explanation of their origins, studies and criticisms thereof. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]<sup>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']]</sup> 09:05, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I do not think this should be merged with Dawkins' article. True, he did coin the term, but others have expanded on it significantly - for example Dr. Susan Blackmore in her book, The Meme Machine. Moreover - what is the point of redirecting the article to another article that does not even mention memes? That does not make sense. It would appear as if time is being spent on studying memes, so I would think they are worth an entry on their own, with an explanation of their origins, studies and criticisms thereof. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]<sup>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']]</sup> 09:05, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
::: Parrothead, if the concept is not important enough to have its own article, then why did you bother with that extended explanation? Surely something akin to that explanation should be in an article about it instead of on a talk page discussing whether we should have an article. That is, most of your comments were about memes, not about whether we should have an article on it. If there is that much to say about memes, why not have an article saying it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 24 August 2008 (EDT)